Whether your recent bizarre policy decisions are driven by a fear of Islam or a woeful lack of Islamic understanding remains unclear, but to most impartial observers it would appear you have crossed the loyalty line and are now officially endorsing sharia law in Britain.

I would remind you that as our Prime Minister your primary duty is to put the interests of your country and your own people before the interests of a foreign people or ideology. I am of course talking about Islam here, more specifically sharia law, which is making rapid progress in Britain and the West. It is both astonishing and chilling that what was formerly considered haraam (forbidden under sharia law) only in Islamic countries is now equally considered haraam in Britain.

A Christian travelling to Saudi Arabia cannot take a bible or a cross into that country, nor could he display pictures or caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. I have no particular problem with this — when in Rome etc. — but I do have a problem, to put it mildly, when my own government appears intent on importing the political ideology of sharia into my own country.

Two recent news stories suggest Britain is not just adopting a policy of appeasement toward sharia, but is already a de-facto sharia state. Firstly, your government is quite incredibly arguing that British Christians should not be allowed to appeal against a ban which outlaws the wearing of crosses in the workplace, and secondly that an Englishman, Darren Conway, has been jailed for twelve months after being found guilty of “religiously aggravated harassment.”

The MSM seems reluctant to inform us how this new thought-crime of religiously aggravated harassment was contravened, but posters displayed by Conway in the windows of his home are rumoured to link the sexual consummation of the marriage between the Prophet Mohammed and his nine year old bride Aisha with the casual disregard Muslims exhibit toward the rape and grooming of underage English girls in Britain’s northern towns and cities.

I am not going to suggest that displaying such posters is the most diplomatic way of drawing a comparison between Mohammed’ sexual predilections and the ongoing Muslim rape of English girls, but the only point to be made is that the jailing of Darren Conway should not be possible in a non-Islamic country, and would simply not have been possible in Britain ten years ago.

What we are witnessing here, along with the outlawing of Christian crosses, is the rule of sharia in what is still termed a Christian country. You, Mr Cameron, and Britain’s traitor class in government and the media have prostrated yourselves before the onslaught of a fanatical, murderous and resurgent Islam, even as you publicly proclaim Islam to be a religion of peace.

Successive British governments (along with the BBC) have portrayed Islamic terrorists as deluded fanatics who kill for no better reason than to kill — as if the fact that they are brutal means they are insane. Britain’s ruling class deliberately adopts the disingenuous narrative that Islamic terrorists couldn’t possibly be accurately representing a well-grounded interpretation of Islam, and must therefore be ‘perverting’ or ‘hijacking’ Islam, or indeed are “betraying the true Islam”.

But as Andrew McCarthy notes, there is logic to terrorism. It is jihad, the purpose of which is to implement, spread, defend or vindicate sharia, the Muslim legal code. Sharia is the necessary precondition to Islamicizing a society. Once you realize that, you quickly realize that the same sharia-driven campaign can be waged, and is being waged, by non-violent means, and that the violent and non-violent methods are inextricably linked.

In her book The Dhimmi Bat Ye’or writes:

The jihad is a global conception that divides the peoples of the world into two irreconcilable camps: that of the dar al-Harb, the “Territory of War,” which covers those regions controlled by the infidels; and the dar al-Islam, “the Territory of Islam,” the Muslim homeland where Islamic law reigns. The jihad is the normal and permanent state of war between the Muslims and the dar al-Harb, a war that can only end with the final domination over unbelievers and the absolute supremacy of Islam throughout the world.

To further your education, Mr Cameron, you must understand that wars are fought between rival tribes, races and religions not in order to sate mankind’s desire for violence but as a means to an end, with the end being one thing and one thing only — political control over the defeated people. When you act against Britain’s Christians in the way that you now do, and lock up Englishmen who dare to portray Mohammed in posters, you are in effect enforcing sharia law against traditional Britain.

You are therefore not representing your country and your people; you are representing the ideology and law of sharia, an alien political system with a history of absolute enmity against the West, and which currently seeks to dismantle the liberal democracy of Great Britain over which you preside. You are in short, exhibiting the behaviour of a traitor.
It is possible I am being somewhat harsh on you Mr Cameron. It is possible your education and professional life to date leaves you ill-equipped to absorb the realities of Islamic imperialism, but ignorance about a matter of such profound importance is not a legitimate defence. Perhaps you think the Islamic threat is blown out of all proportion by “right-wing extremists”, but the threat is more than real: it is overpoweringly the single biggest issue of not just our time, but of all time.

You may not want to admit that Islam is at war with the West, but Islam fully realises it is engaged in a physical and ideological war against us. Until such time as you accept this reality then it will be a war we can only lose. How can we mount a defence when the traitor class refuse to even acknowledge we are under threat?

The rise of Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League signify the initial stage of an inevitable religious civil war in Britain. It is the working man of England who must face the reality of living in our rapidly increasing Islamic areas, but demographics suggest the middle-classes will also face Islamic reality in the very near future. Old Etonians, Oxbridge graduates and the champagne socialists (who all choose to live well away from the deliberately imported multicultural hell-holes created by the traitor class) have assured a truly terrible future for Britain and its betrayed indigenous people.

Western politicians such as yourself, Mr Cameron, have operated in a liberal democracy for so long you have forgotten the law of the jungle and are thus culturally unable to descend to its level. Islam, with its refusal to accept democratic man-made laws; its openly discriminatory attitude toward non-Muslims, its propensity for intolerant violence and its tribal/political/religious ideology is the law of the jungle, and the Savile Row suited and politically correct Western politicians — all reared on a diet of non-discrimination and tolerance — are thus rendered defenceless before it.

I would be glad to hear a coherent argument against the content of this open letter, Mr Cameron, but fully understand that your vocal appeasement of resurgent Islam makes such a response more than a little unlikely. This is a shame, because I am sure I speak for many millions of British people who find your official endorsement of sharia law in Britain baffling in the extreme.

The British Freedom Party has just been forced to abandon its attempt to hold a party meeting after the venue’s owner cancelled, apparently after being intimidated by threats from the party’s opponents.

Paul Weston, the Chairman of the British Freedom Party, wrote the following response.

Unite Against Freedom!By Paul Weston

The UAF — “Unite Against Freedom” — has temporarily got its totalitarian way and closed down British Freedom’s London meeting, through the use of violence and intimidation. George Whale received a phone call from the venue’s landlord earlier today. The man sounded very frightened and refused to say why the event was now off.

Such is the undemocratic way of the Communist Left. There are three points to be recognised here.

1.

The Soviet / Communist Left invaded Poland two weeks after Germany crossed the border, in alliance with the Nazi Party. It was only when Hitler later attacked Russia that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact disintegrated.

2.

Having sided with the Nazis, the Communists then went on to murder 100 million of their own countrymen in an evil, racist and warped attempt to bring about a socialist Utopia. All they achieved though (apart from Ukrainian genocide) was social, economic and environmental catastrophe.

3.

Unite Against Freedom is a Socialist/Communist organisation and they are simply carrying on in the same hateful and totalitarian way as they did in the last century. Islam is now their political pawn which they use to attack the traditional West — hence Islam must be protected.

Nothing shows better the extreme hatred the Left has for Western Civilisation than their unashamed alliance with a movement (Islam) which is mortally opposed to liberalism’s sacred calves — women’s rights, gay rights, abortion and multiple cultures. Yet Islam and the Left are in harmony on the major issues. They are anti-Christian and anti-Jew; they are anti-democracy and anti-individual rights; they are anti-capitalist, and they regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective. Consequently, they have the same common enemy — Western Civilisation.

Unite Against Freedom has been in the news this week. Not for any acts of human kindness of course, but for electing a terrorist sympathiser, one Azad Ali, to Vice Chair of UAF. Andrew Gilligan reports on this in The Daily Telegraph, and states:

Azad is the community affairs co-ordinator of the extremist Islamic Forum of Europe, which controls the East London Mosque and which is dedicated, in its own words, to changing the “very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed … from ignorance to Islam.” Through “hisbah” (the enforcement of Islamic law) and “jihad,” it aims to create a “global” Islamic dictatorship, the caliphate, and its “primary work” in this “is in Europe, because it is this continent, despite all the furore about its achievements, which has a moral and spiritual vacuum.”

In addition, Azad Ali of Unite Against Freedom has been exposed at the blog site Harry’s place:

Azad Ali opposes democracy “if it means at the expense of not implementing the sharia”

Azad Ali sued The Daily Mail for suggesting that comments on his blog showed that he was “a hardline Islamic extremist who supports the killing of British and American soldiers in Iraq by fellow Muslims as justified”. He lost.

Azad Ali used to attend talks by the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda in Europe: Abu Qatada.

Azad Ali wants Ismail Haniyeh — leader of the genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation, Hamas — to be the Caliph of the next Caliphate.

Azad Ali admired the Al Qaeda and recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki and had this to say about him on the Islamic Forum of Europe’s blog: “I really do love him for the sake of Allah, he has an uncanny way of explaining things to people which is endearing.”

Azad Ali’s show on the Islam Channel was sanctioned by OFCOM for its failure to maintain due impartiality in its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, including in relation to comments on Mahmoud Abbas. That’s because he’s a Hamas supporter.

When an undercover reporter for Dispatches exposed Azad Ali’s political views, he threatened them on his radio show, saying: “We’ve got a picture of you and a lot more than you thought we had. We’ve tracked you down to different places. And if people are gonna turn what I’ve just said into a threat, that’s their fault, innit?”

So this is the UAF: historically the ideological allies of the Nazis, genocidal murderers of their own people, and now promoters of Islamic terrorism. It is hard to believe in a non-surreal world that these truly obscene and damaged people have the gall, the sheer hypocritical effrontery, to maintain that WE are the fascists. Verily, they need mental counselling.

The typical Unite Against Freedom activist probably suffers from some childhood trauma or other, so perhaps we should excuse them, or at least sympathise with them. But what is inexcusable is the support these Nazi thugs received from Ken Livingstone and a number of Members of Parliament — who must be held to account for publicly endorsing such a fascist, hateful and rabidly anti-British, racist organisation.

The list of MP’s is here, and I will soon be providing a form letter to send to them, should they happen to represent your constituency. British Freedom will of course be writing to David Cameron — who has also endorsed the UAF — about this disgusting matter:

Segregate the Generations. In the course of a political argument, an ancient old lady was told by her grandson that she came from a different generation, to which she replied: “No, I come from a different civilisation.”

Quite so. There is little point in controlling the medium of Socialist education if the wisdom of the older “reactionary” generations can still be passed down to the younger. In Africa, the tribal elders are respected and listened to, but in Britain those over a certain age are mocked at worst, or sidelined at best, because they come from a pre-revolutionary era. Those born after 1970 come from the post-revolutionary era, and never the twain shall meet. The educational and media establishments are run in the main by the young or the very young, all soaked in Marxist ideology, and their output is principally aimed only at the young. This is deliberately done in order to ensure the segregation of those who could present an alternative voice to their incessant and twisted Socialist propaganda.

Promote Conformity in the guise of Individualism. Has there ever been such conformity amongst the youth of a democratic nation before? Most young people are politically correct. They have been reared to believe in themselves as individuals, and to hold their own self-esteem (their very high and totally unearned self-esteem) as an intrinsic part of said individuality. But in reality they have been socially engineered into individuals who all believe the same thing. This is because the conformist herd is so much easier to control than the non-conformist individual, particularly so, when the herd mentality just happens to be the ideology of the Socialist State. The heavily propagandised ideology shared by the vast majority of the young is not quite as compassionate as they think, however, because the stark reality of it guarantees their immediate cultural destruction, and their eventual racial destruction.

Create an Anarchic Youth. Remove the various traditions and taboos that bound previous societies together; deem discipline in schools to be an archaic bourgeois form of child abuse; promote the ideology of self before group and pleasure before duty; promote licentiousness through early-age sex education coupled with pornographic music videos à la MTV; downplay heterosexual marriage as one of many equally valid lifestyle choices; remove the taboo of illegitimacy and reward it through welfare payments; offer abortions to teenage girls without their parents’ knowledge; promote an ideology of “Me, me , me! Now, now, now!” above outmoded ideas such as sacrifice, thrift, duty, honour, morality, truth, decency and patriotism.

Destroy Competitiveness: This is dressed up with words like egalitarianism and equality, but what it really means is dragging everything down to the lowest common denominator, which is far easier than dragging people upwards. Grammar Schools were elitist, and therefore had to be destroyed, even though the main beneficiaries were working class. Competitive sport meant that for every winner there were several losers, so that too had to be sidelined in some state schools. But the rest of the world does not play by the same suicidal rules. China is already an economic superpower; how can we hope to compete when they worship elitism and strive for success, whilst we worship the lowest-common-denominator ideology of egalitarianism, and reward failure?

Destroy Self-Reliance. Building a dependent class is of great importance to left/liberals. Firstly, the dependents will vote for the hand that feeds them the most, and secondly it enables the ruling elite to exercise control they could never dream of exercising over a non-dependent class. This explains why Britain’s public sector is favoured above the private sector by left/liberals, and why the deliberate formation of a permanent state-dependent underclass seems to worry them so little. In 2008-9 the welfare payment bill was actually higher than the total P.A.Y.E. tax-receipts, however. And, quite astonishingly, there are more people registered as disabled (and claiming benefits) than were registered disabled immediately after World War One! This is obviously unsustainable, and confirms Alexander Tytler’s view that democracies collapse when the money provided by the rulers in return for their vote eventually runs out, after which dictatorship inevitably follows. Tytler’s famous quote is as follows:

From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.

Destroy Democracy. Britain is no longer a truly democratic country. 80% of our new legislation is now enacted in Brussels at the behest of twenty-seven Commissioners whom we never elected and can never democratically remove from office. The British government is essentially just a puppet council, allowed to remain in place to reassure the gullible public that we still run our own affairs — which we don’t. In addition, the flooding of Britain by third world immigrants was an undemocratic act. The electorate was never asked if we wished to transform Britain into a multi-ethnic, multicultural country. If we had been asked, we would have said “No!” And, just to rub salt into the wound, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for left/liberal politicians — which, of course, is partially why they were imported in the first place.

The Labour Party’s introduction of postal voting also means our elections are now influenced by fraudulently obtained ballot papers not only in Britain’s large Muslim enclaves, but also — and this is completely surreal — via proxy votes in Pakistan and Bangladesh! In the 2010 British elections the Conservatives failed to win a majority by a very slim margin, leading Lady Warsi, a Conservative Muslim, to lay the blame squarely on Muslim electoral fraud. When British elections (such as they are, now the EU is the real power) are illegally influenced by Pakistanis in Mirpur, I think we can safely say our democracy is dead.

Introduce Mass Immigration. The white working class betrayed the hard Left when they failed to rise up in the much longed-for proletarian revolution, and they failed to rise up because they had become too affluent. The Marxist solution was to introduce a new, foreign-born “oppressed proletariat” as a means to Socialism’s ongoing march toward total power. The number of third world immigrants runs into the millions. This deliberate dilution of an indigenous people has never before happened on such a scale. If UN guidelines on genocide are taken quite literally, it amounts to the ethnic cleansing of the English.

White children are now a minority in London schools and many schools within other British cities. Demographers predict the indigenous population will become a minority before 2060, with the young suffering that fate even earlier. Feminist ideology has dramatically decreased the indigenous demographic whilst the Islamic population is doubling every decade through continued immigration and a high birth rates. Islam is already a huge problem in Britain, yet, as their numbers grow, so will their demands on traditional Britain, which lives its life in a manner markedly different to life under Sharia Law — which surveys suggest some 40% of British Muslims wish to see enacted.

Why do left/liberals act as apologists for Islam? Hugh Fitzgerald puts it thus: “Nothing shows better the extreme hatred liberals have for Western Civilisation than their unashamed alliance with a movement (Islam) which is mortally opposed to liberalism’s sacred calves — women’s rights, gay rights, abortion and multiple cultures. Yet Islam and the liberal/left are in harmony on the major issues. They are anti-Christian and anti-Jew, they are anti-democracy and anti-individual rights, they are anti-capitalist and they regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective. Consequently, they have the same common enemy — Western Civilisation”

Promote Racial Division. The successful integration of happy foreigners with a happy indigenous population is hardly going to foment revolution, hence the ideology of multiculturalism which intentionally divides races and cultures. Multiculturalism was designed to destroy any sense of national pride and patriotism amongst the indigenous population, whilst actively encouraging the same amongst the incoming races and cultures. It also encourages ethnic minorities to believe their lack of success is due to (or if they are successful, in spite of) historical white imperialist oppression and current white Western institutional racism. This makes them united, vengeful, angry and strong. Multiculturalism actively instils guilt in the indigenous white population for our past oppression and current racism, which makes us apologetic, disunited and weak. We can only, it seems, be forgiven our historical racial sins once the ethnic minorities have matched or surpassed the demographic and political power of the indigenous people.

Destroy Native Resistance. New laws have been passed to criminalise those who dare to speak out against their territorial, racial and cultural dispossession. Children are brainwashed into “celebrating” their dispossession with such Orwellian intent that thousands as young as three have been officially noted as possessing “racist” tendencies — a situation we can only expect to worsen as the demographic gap between white and non-white inexorably narrows. Race is the biggest weapon the left/liberals use in their war against traditional Britain, so resistance to that weapon is both criminalised and subsequently labelled the evil of all evils — RACISM — in order to strip us of our only peaceful defence mechanism. Of course there are some racist whites, but they are a statistical minority compared to the ethnic minorities who physically attack whites at a far greater ratio than vice-versa. The only true racists in Britain are the treasonous anti-white politicians, policemen and journalists who seek to cover up the real statistics about racial crime and racial hate.

Use Selective History to counter Native Resistance. British education ignores the crimes of Communism and concentrates only on the crimes of Hitler, portraying him principally as a racist. The evils of Nazism can then be used as an attack against indigenous peoples who protest their cultural and territorial dispossession, by simply labelling the protestors as Nazi racists and therefore no better than Hitler himself. In reality the left/liberals are as obsessed with race — in its diverse form — as Hitler and the Nazis were with race in its pure form. And they are using race with the express intention of achieving what Hitler failed to do — the absolute conquest of Britain, Europe and the West, at the expense of its indigenous peoples.

Distract the Population. This is a tried and tested principle dating back to the Roman times of Bread and Circuses. Just look at the output of the mainstream media, which deals in fantasy and trivia rather than reality and substance. This sadly works just as intended. The majority of Brits have been gradually sucked down into an infantile world of vapid celebrity worship, football, X Factor and gutter sensationalism, all promoted 24/7 by the media establishment. As a direct consequence, they have little interest in matters that really matter.

No doubt the left/liberals will denounce this series of articles as the ranting of a right wing conspiracy theorist. But facts are facts; the Communists did set out to subvert the capitalist West; the anti-Western critical theory of the Frankfurt school is now the ideology of the educational and media establishments; the left/liberal politicians did set out to transform Britain via mass third world immigration; our industry was destroyed, as has been our educational establishments etc. etc. etc., and the people behind this destruction were and are Marxists, leftists, or useful idiot liberals.

Every single one of the deliberately destructive policies I have outlined above could destroy a country over a lengthy period of time, even without the Third World invasion. When they are combined, however, and mass immigration is added to the mix, our destruction is not only assured, it is assured over a relatively small time-span.

Consequently, the speed of Britain’s destruction has been astonishingly fast. Anyone over the age of 40-50 will tell you that Britain today is not the Britain they were born into, and that Britain is simply not sustainable in its present condition. But the left/liberals have made a terrible mistake. The future will not be one of Marxist revolution and permanent leftist control. Whilst mass third world immigration may have been their main weapon of choice to destabilise the country, they simply did not reckon with such a rapidly expanding, cohesive and militant Islam.

The future of Britain can logically be one of only two options. A country dominated by Islam, or a country dominated by the right wing, which is rapidly growing as a wholly natural response to the combined threat of Islam and the left. Freedom Parties are gaining ground everywhere, and now include the British Freedom Party. No one knows which side will emerge triumphant in the battle between Islam and the emerging right, but whichever it is, one thing is very strongly assured: they will hold no great regard for the left/liberals — to put it very mildly indeed.

At the beginning of this series, I asked whether the appalling destruction carried out in the name of left-wing ideology was well-intentioned liberal stupidity, or brilliantly-planned leftist malevolence. Perhaps it really was done to realise Georg Lukacz’s dream: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

Or perhaps it wasn’t. It is quite possible it was caused by liberal stupidity of criminal proportions, but all that really matters now is that the damage wreaked by the left/liberals be redressed — and we have little time remaining in which to do so.

The Marxist left/liberals have now completed their Long March Through the Institutions. They claim the varied lunatic policies they enacted were for the benefit of society, but can this really be the case? When viewed through the prism of reality, much of socialism’s ideology appears to have one aim and one aim only: the total destruction of society. This is not an overreaction by any means — if societal destruction was your bag, would you not carry out the following?

Destroy Industry. What is the difference between booming Germany and bankrupt Britain? Simple: Germany manufactures and Britain consumes — but this was not always the case. Britain once had a dominant engineering and ship-building industry, and was Europe’s biggest manufacturer of cars and motor-cycles. It was therefore essential to sabotage our industrial base — our means of production — in order to destroy capitalist Britain. Many Trades Union leaders of the 1950s through to the 1980s were Communists or Communist sympathisers who organised strikes and “downed-tools” so successfully that Britain’s industrial base went to the wall. Writing in the Spectator last year, Douglas Eden outlined the infiltration of British Trades Unions, and how their pro-Soviet ideology was tolerated by Labour Prime Ministers up until the election in 1979 of Margaret Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher, incidentally, is hated so viscerally by the left/liberals because her defeat of the unions was perceived to have ended the dream of International Communism.

Destroy Education. Having defeated the Unions, Margaret Thatcher, inexplicably, never promoted British industry in the aftermath. She decided instead that Britain’s economy should be based around a Service Industry, which essentially meant paper-shuffling and number-crunching. As paper-shufflers and number-crunchers need to be educated to a reasonable standard, so the left/liberals took their Marxist war against the economy into the classrooms. The British state school curriculum essentially revolves around the Frankfurt School ideology of anti-Western Critical Theory, with traditional education placed second best. An exposé of the overt socialist propaganda in our schools may be read here, but the results of Britain’s progressive educational policies are visible all around us. Semi-literate and semi-numerate university graduates sit atop a pile of the most badly educated young people in Europe, many of whom are completely unemployable, according to the heads of British business — just as was intended by the hard Left, and implemented by their eager armies of liberal Useful Idiots.

Destroy the family. Feminism has often been described as a war against men, but it is more than just that. Feminist ideology is really about war against the family, because families tend to be self-sufficient and therefore less reliant on the state. As Socialism is all about state control, then the family must be smashed.

Betty Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir and Germaine Greer, Communist supporters all, took their dysfunctional ideology from Friedrich Engel’s statement in The Origin of the family: “The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed slavery of the wife…within the family he is the bourgeois and his wife represents the proletariat.” Germaine Greer is in complete agreement with Engels, and her book The Female Eunuch is essentially a clarion call for destruction, anarchy and Communism, as we can see from the following quote: “Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary structure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it.”

Greer goes on to say: “But man made one grave mistake…he admitted women to politics and the professions. The conservatives who saw this as the undermining of our civilisation and the end of the state and marriage were right after all; it is time for the demolition to begin.” Well, thanks, Germaine! The demolition not only began; it is now all but over. Surveys suggest children raised in conventional families are far less likely to go off the rails, but in the Socialist world the ends justify the means, so feminists ignore the broken lives and thwarted ambitions of fatherless, state supported children, particularly those of West Indian origin and the white working-class members of the abandoned proletariat. In addition, brainwashed British women have put abortion and careers before motherhood and give birth to a new generation 25% smaller than their own, which effectively destroys any hope of an equal or growing future tax-payer base to fund the welfare state.

Eradicate Religion. All great civilisations have been built around great religions. Western Civilisation is built on the foundations of Judeo-Christianity, so if Western Civilisation is to be destroyed then its religious pillars must first be undermined. Again, this destructive ethos is derived from Communist ideology. Christianity and Communism are fundamentally incompatible — one is a spiritual creed, the other materialist. Christianity lays down that a man’s responsibility to his neighbour is personal, a matter for his individual conscience, while communism decrees that all duties are collective, to be enforced by the state. Karl Marx stated:

“The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submission, humility. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

Communists believed the Ten Commandments to be a form of “class morality” that served only the interests of the Bourgeoisie. Anatole Lunarcharsky, a Russian Commissar of education declared: We hate Christianity and Christians…they preach love of one’s neighbours and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution! What we want is hate, only then can we conquer the world.

In Britain, Christianity is not outlawed, just sidelined, sneered at, and its practice sometimes criminalised. The persecution of British Christians has reached such a level that in 2010 Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and six prominent bishops, penned an open letter to the Labour government stating: “We are deeply concerned at the apparent discrimination shown against Christians and we call on the Government to remedy this serious development. In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld. There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country.”

Perhaps Lord Carey actually understands that the Marxist elites in Britain share the same hatred of Christianity, for precisely the same reasons, as did the Communists. The BBC recently appointed a controversial Muslim, Aaqil Ahmed, to head up their religious affairs department.

In 2006 the BBC was shamed into rewriting an anti-Christian pro-Islamic text aimed at schoolchildren, which described Christianity as a religion of racism, sexism, colonialism, enslavement and murder, whilst Islam, with its arranged marriages, honour killings and second class status for women under Sharia law, was deemed a female friendly religion. Britain’s left/liberal elites clearly consider Christianity to be an impediment to the ideology of the New Socialist Man they seem intent on building.

Eradicate Morality. There is little point in eradicating religion without ensuring the concomitant destruction of morality, hence the invention of moral relativism which argues there is no such thing as right or wrong. Lenin invoked the same ideology, but did so in a more honest manner when he said, “Morality is that which furthers the revolution.” The Marxists and liberal/left who now control the education and media establishments in Britain know that massive social change cannot be brought about by outright revolution, so realise that anarchy must first prevail — just as espoused by Georg Lukacs. A sure-fire way to create an anarchic situation is to remove the young from the codes of behaviour that religion and morality demand.

Destroy the Community. Like families, communities tend toward self-sufficiency and are the bed-rock of Nation States. The community is simply part of a chain — family, community, village, town, city, country, nation state. Communities are capable of acting together in defiance of the State — ergo, they too must be smashed. How to do so? Demolish streets of family houses and build impersonal blocks; close down local schools and hospitals and build mega-versions controlled by faceless bureaucrats rather than locally known people; close local Post Offices where the elderly meet and gossip once a week; outlaw smoking and make pubs (the nerve centres of individual resistance) prohibitively expensive. In short, fragment and isolate the population so they feel alone and powerless before the all-powerful state and its ever growing army of interfering bureaucrats.

Destroy the Middle-Class. Shortly after the jailed dissident turned president Vaclav Havel came to power in Czechoslovakia in 1989, he stated that the rebuilding of Socialism’s shattered economic, moral, spiritual and environmental forty-year catastrophe could not take place until a new middle-class had formed. This is exactly right. The middle classes are the backbone of any functioning democracy. They pay taxes; they participate in their children’s education; they form committees and pressure groups; they raise money for local causes; they are self-sufficient and require little or nothing from the State. Such independent actions make them an acute threat to the State and must therefore be smashed. Disguised as the promotion of a “Classless Society” Britain’s middle-classes have been systematically traduced by the educational and media establishments, because they represent the bourgeoisie in ideology, if not in income.

Destroy the Working Class. Britain has been importing a low-skilled “workforce” from less developed countries for decades, whilst simultaneously exporting low-skilled jobs abroad. Whilst it is pleasant for highly paid BBC liberals to employ cheap nannies and cleaners, the working class find themselves in direct competition with immigrants, which is an area where they simply cannot compete. A Polish builder who works for half the rate of a British builder does not have to pay a mortgage or support a family, and is happy living fifteen to a house for a few years before moving back to Poland with a large pot of money. Big business has no problem with this, nor do the Left/liberal elites who are happy to create an unemployed British under-class which can be relied on to keep foolishly voting for them, simply because they offer the highest rewards for enforced unemployment.

Destroy The Nation State. This is more about the European Union than internal British politics, but it is very important. The Unelected Commissars who run the EU are fully aware they cannot control fully-functioning Nation States, which is why the United Kingdom has been broken up into twelve regions. The recent Labour government even went so far as to appoint Regional Ministers for each area. This destruction of our ancient counties and governance — with the word “England” actually removed from EU maps — is otherwise known as “Divide and Rule.”

“There is a revolution coming. It will not be like the revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and with culture, and will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the new generation.”

— Charles Reich. “The Greening of America.” 1970.

Every generation bemoans the slippage of standards and the “going to the dogs” of society, but history shows that civilisations and peoples really do collapse utterly. Some even become extinct. Great Britain, needless to say, is no longer as great as it once was, but has the degradation we see around us on a daily basis been caused by well-intentioned liberal stupidity, or by brilliantly-planned leftist malevolence?

Perhaps it is a mixture of both. It has long been known that the hard Left wished to transform the traditional Britain (and West) I was born into. Via a protracted campaign of brainwashing and propaganda they were able to recruit well intentioned liberals into an unknowing alliance. This was not particularly difficult, of course; liberals are easily duped by propagandised platitudes and fall very easily into Lenin’s denouncement of them as Useful Idiots.

But first, let us deal with some facts. During and after WWII the Soviet Communists gobbled up as much of Europe as they could. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia disappeared behind the Iron Curtain, followed by Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and East Germany. In essence, any country within Moscow’s military strike capability fell into its clutches and became part of the Soviet empire.

The Communists really did have global aspirations, so countries outside their military sphere were not simply ignored and written off, they were earmarked for destabilisation and subversion, to be taken over at a later date. The Kremlin office assigned this task was the Department of Agitation and Propaganda, which worked with Western Communist parties, including the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB).

Added to this subversive mix was what became known as the Frankfurt School, which wielded enormous social pressure — initially in America and subsequently in Britain — in the decades after the Second World War. It was established in Frankfurt in 1923 by the Hungarian Communist Georg Lukacs, and was known in those days as the Institution for Marxism.

Lukacs was an agent of The Communist International (Comintern) which had been established in Moscow in 1919 in order to “fight by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie for the creation of an international Soviet republic.”

Karl Marx wrote of the anarchy necessary as a precursor to outright revolution, in which he would “stand astride the wreckage a colossus.” Lukacs, whose reputation in the revolutionary world was almost on a par with Marx himself, said: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

In the 1930s Lukacs was joined by two other Marxists, Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno, but the rise of Hitler made it impossible for them to stay in Germany, so they moved to New York City, where the institute became known as the Frankfurt School. In the 1950s they were joined by a new recruit Herbert Marcuse, and between them they started to write the Marxist future of the democratic West.
The Frankfurt School was the birthplace of Critical Theory, which may be described as the destructive criticism of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethno-centrism, and conservatism — whilst the basic tenets of Western evil are repeated over and over again: Racism, sexism, colonialism, nationalism, homophobia, fascism, xenophobia and imperialism.

Herbert Marcuse is probably the most infamous person that most people today have never heard of. His book Eros and Civilization promoted Free Love and the Pleasure Principle. His counter-cultural ideologies gradually transformed American and Western society from that which built Western Civilisation into that which exists only to tear it down. The greying politicians who now run the West and the majority of its institutions are the same fresh-faced students of the 1970s who once sang the Marcuse-inspired “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ [civilisation] has got to go.”

A cult developed around Marcuse during the 1960s and 1970s, and the student-hippie generation was the Marcuse generation. He was held in such esteem that everything he penned was taken seriously, resulting in the students’ absorption of not just Marcuse’s most famous expression, “Make Love not War”, but also the rest of the Frankfurt School’s anti-Western, counter-cultural propaganda. Never had Lenin’s useful idiots been more abundant.

But Marcuse was an evil man. He genuinely wanted to overthrow the traditional West. When asked who would play the part of the Russian proletariat in the Western revolution, he replied it would be all the marginalised groups, including black militants, feminists, homosexual militants, the asocial, the alienated and third world revolutionaries represented by the mass murderer Che Guevara.

The destructive policies of the Frankfurt school were known collectively as Cultural Terrorism. Today, they are simply referred to as Political Correctness, an ideology people are aware of, although very few know of its anti-Western, destructive and revolutionary roots. Doubters should ask why the victims of the politically correct lobby are overwhelmingly white, Christian, capitalist, heterosexual and male, or DWEMs as they are crudely referred to in America, short for Dead White European Males.

The simple answer is that these men and the qualities they embodied laid the foundations, erected the props, and over many centuries built the various layers of intertwined ideology and structure that formed Western Civilisation. If our memory of them can be destroyed, if the ideology can be destroyed, and if the race of people who currently represent that ideology can be destroyed, then Western Civilisation can itself be destroyed.

Only when we understand this harsh reality does the modern world make any sense. Western society has not suddenly become insane. We do not live in a society of political correctness gone mad. It is not that we are old and just don’t get it. The terrifying truth is that we are being set up for deliberately engineered control by a well-planned Socialist operation that has been decades in the making. Partial proof of this fact is the typical white liberal/leftist who denounces the historical European colonisation of foreign lands as imperialistic and oppressive, yet celebrates the current foreign colonisation of Europe. This tells us it is not colonialism with which the liberal/left have a problem, but Western Civilisation itself.

This article is the first part of a three-part series. It serves to outline the background of the leftist assault on Britain and Western Civilisation as a whole.

In Part Two I will write in detail of the dedicated campaign waged against our traditions and our society.

The mainstream media (MSM) have devoted a great deal of space to the Stephen Lawrence case of late. Many journalists have commented that whilst Britain was a racist country in the recent past, the Britain of today is a much more tolerant place. This may well be the case with regard to white-on-non-white racial crime, but what about the violent crime committed by non-whites on whites, and what about the way this is treated by the MSM?

The ruling elites would rather we remained ignorant of such matters, so there is little information out there apart from the British Crime Survey of 2004 which stated:

…people from black or minority ethnic communities suffered 49,000 violent attacks, with 4,000 being wounded. The number of violent attacks against whites reached 77,000, while the number of white people who reported being wounded was five times the number of black and minority ethnic victims at 20,000.

Bearing in mind that whites account for 90% of the population, simple maths suggests that non-whites attack and wound whites at a rate forty-five times higher than whites wound non-whites. This is a truly shocking figure and one that should be of enormous concern to the race relations industry, the government and the media, who purport to be intensely interested in both racial crime and “community cohesion”. However, this appears not to be the case at all.

For those aware of what has been happening in Britain (and all over the West), this media silence should come as no surprise, understanding as they do that the racial and cultural dispossession of the indigenous peoples is the greatest weapon the hard left possesses in its unfinished war against the traditional Western Nation State.

A major weapon has to be defended, just as an aircraft carrier is encircled with a protective fleet of destroyers. This is why the concept of “racism” was invented and turned into the most evil of all evils, surpassing even murder, which now carries a longer term if the killing was racially motivated.

It makes perfect sense, of course. The only defence against becoming an ethnic minority in our homeland before 2060 is to draw attention to our predicament. If the left can make such a defence not just immoral but evil, then they have removed the one and only obstacle that could possibly resist their racially-driven agenda, and if they can capture the means of disseminating information (such as the BBC) then they can continue unopposed — which is exactly what they are doing.

The left divides society into the oppressed and the oppressors. The working-class man of Britain was supposed to represent the historically oppressed masses awaiting the Marxist revolution, but unforgivably — in the eyes of the revolutionaries — the working class became too affluent, preferring to queue for beer in Ibiza, rather than queue for the bare essentials of life in a Sovietised London.

Hence the importation of a new immigrant underclass, which is then deliberately under-educated in order to retain its status as the useful oppressed. Its members are deliberately subjected to propaganda under the guise of Multiculturalism, which constantly reminds them they are eternal victims and the whites eternal oppressors. This is why their varied misdemeanours are overlooked or excused. To allow the truth to be revealed would ruin the leftist plans. How else to explain the climate of fear that surrounds criticism of non-whites?

Take for example the case of black-on-white gang rape. Back in 2004 the Daily Telegraph reported on daily gang rapes taking place in London. The majority of the victims were white, the majority of the gang rapists black. Scotland Yard was treating this topic with great care because of the racial “sensitivity”, and refused to label the crimes as “gang rape”, because to do so would draw attention to clearly-defined youth gangs. The police service is apparently much happier using the term “multiple-perpetrator rape.”

As has been said for many years, if you import the Third World, you become the Third World. In 2009 The Guardianadmitted that a staggering 25% of black South African males had committed single or multiple rapes in the previous year alone, which correlates to the ever-rising number of rape cases involving children unfortunate enough to attend schools in the increasingly diverse inner cities of Britain.

In 2011 the MSM finally came clean about the Muslim grooming and rape of young white girls in Northern towns and cities. In a quite shocking admission the police chiefs reiterated what their London colleagues had previously stated, which was the hushing up of such racial crimes in the interest of community cohesion. Really? Do they not think that our knowing about it, and knowing the police are doing little about it will enhance community cohesion?

But then perhaps the police and the MSM are not really interested in community cohesion at all. If they were, they might be slightly more reticent about plastering reports of white-on-black crime across the newspapers and airwaves. Community cohesion only seems to work when old whitey is kept in the dark whilst the non-whites are made fully aware of white transgressions.

In America some 99.9% of racial rapes are committed by blacks on whites, yet all it requires to gain mainstream coverage of a racial rape is for a black stripper to falsely accuse three white Duke University lacrosse players of gang rape. The MSM went wild and found the Duke boys guilty long before the case ever went to court.

The stripper, one Crystal Gail Mangum, eventually admitted she was no longer sure whether anyone had had sex with her, but by then the boys had been kicked out of college and their reputations destroyed. Why does the MSM ignore the thousands of black-on-white rapes and jump aboard a clearly tenuous white-on-black case with such a frenzy? What sort of sickness now infects the liberal West?

And the same standards apply to racial murder, where some murders are more prominent than others, as in the case of Stephen Lawrence. In 2006 the Guardian reported that Home office Freedom of Information figures showed whites as the victims in half of all racially motivated murders over the previous decade. The Guardian went on to say:

Senior police officers have admitted that ‘political correctness’ and the fear of discussing the issue have meant that race crime against white people goes under-reported. One chief constable has claimed that white, working-class men are more alienated than the Muslim community.

Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Cheshire and a spokesman on race issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said it was a fact that it was harder to get the media interested where murder victims were young white men. ‘The political correctness and reluctance to discuss these things absolutely does play a factor’, he said. ‘A lot of police officers and other professions feel almost the best thing to do is try and avoid it for fear of being criticised. We probably have all got ourselves into a bit of state about this.’

How wonderful! As our kith and kin are raped and murdered by racially motivated non-whites, the police “service”, whose sole remit is to protect the population from such crime, sweep it under the carpet through fear of criticism, and gets itself into “a bit of a state about it.” Such a reprehensible and disgusting attitude stems no doubt from the chief requirement necessary for becoming a police officer in the first place, which is not an ability to catch criminals, so it seems, but to exhibit a “respect for diversity.”

Everyone in Britain has quite rightly heard of Stephen Lawrence and the white savages who murdered him, but how many have heard about Mary-Ann Leneghan? This poor white girl was only sixteen years old when she and a friend were abducted, tortured, and raped by Joshua and Jamaile Morally, Indrit Krasniqui, Llewellyn Adams, Michael Johnson and Adrian Thomas. Mary-Ann was eventually murdered (her friend survived).

The Guardian tells us the girls were forced to strip naked, raped vaginally and orally, burned, cut with knives, hit with a metal pole and told repeatedly that they would be murdered. At times some of the men would ask Thomas for permission to do things, asking if they could burn or stab the girls. He gave that permission, saying ‘Yes, go on, I don’t care. It’s too late now. Nobody is going to help them now.’“

After hours of abuse, the girls were then taken to Prospect Park with pillows over their heads, where prosecutor Richard Latham QC stated:

“It was Johnson who then stabbed Mary-Ann in the abdomen with a large brown kitchen knife. He had her by the neck and hair; she was begging him to stab her in the neck….Mary-Ann then fell on her side and Johnson was stabbing her everywhere. She fell over in a ball trying to protect herself but he rolled her over trying to find a new place on her body to stab her. They said they wanted her to die slowly. She became unable to move and just lay there crying, when she cried or made any sound she was stabbed again.”

In Africa the rape, torture and murder of white farmers and their entire families is now approaching the 4,000 mark, which equates to a full 10% of the white farming community. This signifies a higher mortality rate than that of active servicemen in WWII, and can only be described as racial genocide. Do an Internet search on “Farmers murdered South Africa” on the BBC news website, however, and you will find nothing, save for smear pieces about Eugene Terreblanche and “white supremacy”.

The BBC’s equally white-hating and racist ideologues-in-arms at the Guardian manage to write an article outlining Congo’s invitation to white South African farmers who wished to up sticks and farm there instead, without mentioning why they might wish to leave South Africa in the first place. The article then finished with a reference to the imminent “invasion” of Congo. How evil and racist must these “liberal” journalists be, that they can wilfully ignore an ongoing racial genocide and label those fleeing as invaders?

In America there have been two cases similar to the Mary Ann Leneghan atrocity. Both involved gangs of blacks raping, torturing and murdering whites. They have been dubbed the Wichita Massacre and the Knoxville Horror. I mention these American cases simply to highlight the warped and perverse attitude of the British MSM.

The BBC was very enthusiastic in its reporting on the particularly gruesome and racist murder of a black American in Texas called James Byrd, but if you go to the BBC website and search for any of the names of the white victims in the Wichita Massacre or the Knoxville Horror, you will find not a single word, not a single acknowledgement of the two greatest racial crimes committed in America in the last century. Why the inexplicable double standards, which seem utterly dependent on skin colour?

This entire scenario appears surreal and insane until one reads the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) guidelines on racial reporting, at which point all becomes clear:

Guidelines ratified by the National Union of Journalists (UK and Ireland) for all its members to follow when dealing with race relations subjects.

Statement on race reporting

The NUJ believes that the development of racist attitudes and the growth of fascist parties pose a threat to democracy, the rights of trade union organisations, a free press and the development of social harmony and well-being.

The NUJ believes that its members cannot avoid a measure of responsibility in fighting the evil of racism as expressed through the mass media.

The NUJ reaffirms its total opposition to censorship but equally reaffirms its belief that press freedom must be conditioned by responsibility and an acknowledgement by all media workers of the need not to allow press freedom to be abused to slander a section of the community or to promote the evil of racism.

The NUJ believes the methods and lies of the racists should be publicly and vigorously exposed.

The NUJ believes that newspapers and magazines should not originate material which encourages discrimination on grounds of race or colour, as expressed in the NUJ’s rule book and code of conduct.

The NUJ recognises the right of members to withhold their labour on grounds of conscience where employers are providing a platform for racist propaganda.

The NUJ believes that editors should ensure that coverage of race stories should be placed in a balanced context.

The NUJ will continue to monitor the development of media coverage in this area and give support to members seeking to enforce the above aims.

Race reporting

Only mention someone’s race if it is strictly relevant. Check to make sure you have it right. Would you mention race if the person was white?

Do not sensationalise race relations issues; it harms black people and it could harm you.

Think carefully about the words you use. Words which were once in common usage are now considered offensive, e.g. half-caste and coloured. Use mixed-race and black instead. Black can cover people of Arab, Asian, Chinese and African origin. Ask people how they define themselves.

Immigrant is often used as a term of abuse. Do not use it unless the person really is an immigrant. Most black people in Britain were born here and most immigrants are white.

Do not make assumptions about a person’s cultural background — whether it is their name or religious detail. Ask them or where it is not possible check with the local race equality council.

Investigate the treatment of black people in education, health, employment and housing. Do not forget travellers and gypsies. Cover their lives and concerns. Seek the views of their representatives.

Remember that black communities are culturally diverse. Get a full and correct view from representative organisations.

Press for equal opportunities for employment for black staff.

Be wary of disinformation. Just because a source is traditional does not mean it is accurate.

Reporting racist organisations

When interviewing representatives of racist organisations or reporting meetings or statements or claims, journalists should carefully check all reports for accuracy and seek rebutting or opposing comments. The anti-social nature of such views should be exposed.

Do not sensationalise by reports, photographs,. film or presentation the activities of racist organisations.

Seek to publish or broadcast material exposing the myths and lies of racist organisations and their anti-social behaviour.

Do not allow the letters column or ‘phone-in’ programmes to be used to spread racial hatred in whatever guise.

So there you have it. To summarise the NUJ guidelines, they seek to withhold details of black-on-white crime whilst promoting coverage of white-on-black crime; to label any person or organisation seeking to expose the truth as fascist/racist; to ignore any party or movement that opposes the Left’s race war against the indigenous people, and if they become too big to ignore, seek to destroy them.

When the Labour Party was in power, the Home Office website had a section devoted to hate crime, in which it stated the typical hate crime offender was white, young and working class. This was a lie, but a necessary lie in accord with Labours’ now admitted policy of transforming the traditional, racial and cultural Britain they so hated.

Imagine an invading army defeating and occupying Britain. Imagine their soldiers raping and murdering the British people. Imagine the foreign-led quisling police force ignoring the rapes and murders. Imagine the Vichy government and media covering up the details and promoting a two-minute hate campaign against the British resistance hiding out in the hills.

But you don’t need to imagine, because it is already happening.

What a truly terrifying country Socialist Britain has become. A race of once proud people marginalised prior to their eventual consignment to ethnic minority status; abused, raped and murdered by racist non-whites and abused again by the MSM who seek to withhold the truth. If you think it is bad now, what on earth will it be like in forty years time? If you have a small child today, then this perhaps is something you should think very seriously about.

Trevor Philips, the leader of the Human Rights and Equalities Commission, has stated that Britain is the most tolerant country in the world for a non-white to live in. I agree with him, but I do wish he would go the extra mile and highlight the genuine, virulent racism directed at the indigenous whites by non-whites, the ruling elites and the MSM.

The British really do have a sense of fair play, but we can now see we are not being treated fairly at all, and to judge by the comments in this Telegraph article about Stephen Lawrence and racism, the sense of injustice and anger is building. In the genuine interests of community cohesion, our MSM must become less overtly hostile toward the indigenous people of Britain, and considerably more honest.